Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad

[Veras]

You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay?  You don't agree with a women's right to choose?  You don't agree with universal health care?  You don't agree with social safety nets?

These are not binary, yes/no issues.  You can agree with these ideas, and still disagree about the best way to accomplish them.  The Republicans support a social safety net too, but their idea of what it should look like (very small and largely privatized) is very different from the New Deal style liberal idea, which in turn is very different from the broader, more inclusive leftist perspective.

Trying to reduce these issues to "if you oppose the Democrats, you oppose (broad, generic good thing)" is not any better than when conservatives say "if you oppose our version of national security, you hate America."  Political issues are almost always more complex than that, and it serves the debate poorly to pretend otherwise.

The most important one to me is healthcare.  The Democrats' idea of "universal healthcare" is that everyone should be able to afford to buy private insurance.  I think that's idiotic, and only fully support a single-payer system.  That's not going to happen though.  So, as a leftist, I have to decide if I can hold my nose, vote Democrat, and be okay with it.  If so, great, if not, that's fine too.  The lesser of two evils is still, by definition, evil, and there comes to be a point at which even the lesser evil is intolerable.

The only thing we're arguing about here is if we are already to that point with the Democratic Party.

[Cataclysm]

PPACA can help states implement a single payer system.

The decision means Vermont will likely be able to draw down hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money to subsidize health insurance for low-income residents. It also means a green light, at least for now, for the state to move forward with its goal of implementing a single-payer health care system in 2017.

http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/28/supreme-court-obamacare-decision-good-news-for-vermont-reform-plans/

Here’s how the thinking goes: If the individual mandate falls, but the rest of the law stands, California still expects to receive a big pile of money to expand insurance coverage. The state has the highest number of uninsured people anywhere, meaning it will get one of the biggest funding boosts. For the Medicaid expansion alone, between 2014 and 2019, the state expects to receive $55 billion.

If California got the necessary waivers from the Obama administration, it could pool those dollars with existing funds to lay a foundation for a single-payer health care system. It’s an approach relatively similar to the one that Vermont is now pursuing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/27/if-obamacare-falls-california-groups-plan-a-single-payer-push/

[Veras]

The ACA certainly does some good things, and if a few states can use it to build something better, then that's wonderful too.  Hell, without it, my wife and I would be uninsured.  I'm glad that it exists.  But it is not only not a single-payer system, it doesn't create a universal healthcare system.  There will still be people uninsured under it, even after it is fully implemented.

But the specific merits and flaws of the ACA are beside the point.  The point is that one can agree with a party on broad goals of government while still opposing the policies that they support to accomplish those goals.  Every citizen has the right to decide to whom they want to give their vote.  I see no reason to criticize largeham for choosing to give it to somebody who he agrees with, even if that candidate cannot win.

[m52nickerson]

You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay?  You don't agree with a women's right to choose?  You don't agree with universal health care?  You don't agree with social safety nets?

These are not binary, yes/no issues.  You can agree with these ideas, and still disagree about the best way to accomplish them.  The Republicans support a social safety net too, but their idea of what it should look like (very small and largely privatized) is very different from the New Deal style liberal idea, which in turn is very different from the broader, more inclusive leftist perspective.

Trying to reduce these issues to "if you oppose the Democrats, you oppose (broad, generic good thing)" is not any better than when conservatives say "if you oppose our version of national security, you hate America."  Political issues are almost always more complex than that, and it serves the debate poorly to pretend otherwise.

The most important one to me is healthcare.  The Democrats' idea of "universal healthcare" is that everyone should be able to afford to buy private insurance.  I think that's idiotic, and only fully support a single-payer system.  That's not going to happen though.  So, as a leftist, I have to decide if I can hold my nose, vote Democrat, and be okay with it.  If so, great, if not, that's fine too.  The lesser of two evils is still, by definition, evil, and there comes to be a point at which even the lesser evil is intolerable.

The only thing we're arguing about here is if we are already to that point with the Democratic Party.

My point is that even if you disagree with the party on how to accomplish these things you still agree with them that they are good things.  Right now voting against that Dems in the US is akin to not supporting these things.  Sure support other parties and candidates that are more to your liking when you can, but when you are left with one choice of the other you still have to choose.   

The Dems idea of universal health care is not so everyone can afford private insurance as you said, but that everyone has access to health care.  Having private insurance is one route.  Only fully supporting a single payer system is a bit limited in my view.  What is more important, people having access to health care or how they do?

[Veras]

My point is that even if you disagree with the party on how to accomplish these things you still agree with them that they are good things.  Right now voting against that Dems in the US is akin to not supporting these things.  Sure support other parties and candidates that are more to your liking when you can, but when you are left with one choice of the other you still have to choose.

The problem is that you can disagree with the party on how to accomplish these things to such an extent that you believe that their methods will accomplish nothing.  Again, most Republicans probably wouldn't say that they are against a safety net, they just define the term differently than the Democrats.  You and I would consider the Republicans' policy actions intended to "strengthen" the social safety net as inherently destructive to it.  This is clearly what largeham thinks of the Democratic Party as well.  Just because they profess to favor an idea does not mean that their policies will uphold it.  I disagree with him when he says that Obama and Romney are equally bad, but I can see where he is coming from, and I do not think that there is a lot of difference between the two.

It is also worth nothing that strong third-party showings can force major parties to change.  The Democratic Party became the more liberal party following the 1912 election, when Teddy Roosevelt's strong showing proved that there were enough progressives to shift elections.  They wound up adopting progressive ideas, while the Republicans moved away from them (both parties housed progressives before this point).  Starting in 1916, the Democratic presidential candidate has consistently been the more liberal candidate, despite the presence (and importance) of conservative Southern Democrats, who stayed in the party until well in to the 1960s.

The Dems idea of universal health care is not so everyone can afford private insurance as you said, but that everyone has access to health care.  Having private insurance is one route.  Only fully supporting a single payer system is a bit limited in my view.  What is more important, people having access to health care or how they do?

You're right, I misread the Democratic platform, it is to ensure that everyone has access to affordable care.  Of course, affordable means different things to different people.  Nonetheless, doing so through a single payer system is the only acceptable system in my opinion, because it is both more cost effective (in terms of the percentage of each dollar spent that goes to actual care) and cheaper in absolute cost.  This results in better care for everyone, regardless of income.  I would argue that we will never actually have universal coverage without a single-payer system, and even if we do, it will be painfully inefficient and needlessly expensive.  The important thing is to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare, and by far the best way to do it is through single-payer.

[m52nickerson]

I don't see how anyone can say that there is not that much difference between Romney and Obama.  Maybe if you are talking about what Mitt did in the past, but now?  See to me that just looks like someone who is not paying that close attention.

It is true that the parties can express one thing, yet do another.  The GOP does this when they talk about safety nets.  They pay them only lip service.  The Dems talk about cutting defense but never seem to do it.  For the most part however the parties state their platforms and try and move in those directions.  Things get messy because they have to compromise.

That is the reason why the Dems support universal health care and not single payer specifically.  Right now getting a single payer system in is not in the cards.  Heck the GOP is trying like hell to kill the very conservative health care reform the Dems passed.

Yes, third parties that do well can change the main parties.  Voter groups can do the same.  Look at the way the Tea Party has changed the GOP.  The difference is the Tea Party changed the GOP, pushing it to the right, while not competing with it directly.

[Veras]

You can say that there is little difference between Obama and Romney if you reject the premise that the Democratic and Republican parties are the only viable options.  Look at the Political Compass's take on the election (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012).

As much as I hate the concept, think about it as a thought experiment.  If Obama and the Democrats were a third party, and the everybody knew that either Mitt Romney or Virgil Goode would win the election, would you vote for Romney, whose ideas you so strongly oppose, just because you agree with him more than Goode?

That is fundamentally the choice that Socialists and other leftists have to face.  The Democratic party is a center-right, pro-capitalist party, while the Republicans are a far right pro-capitalist party.  Those of us who oppose capitalism are left with the choice between two parties that uphold an economic system that we dislike, though one has the slight redeeming quality that they are willing to also implement a few (very watered down versions of) policies that we support.

Personally, I'll probably vote for Obama (though it doesn't matter, Romney is currently polling 12 points up in my state), but I understand why somebody would vote for Alexander or Stein.

[m52nickerson]

Yes I would vote for Romney if the choice was between him and Goode.  That being said the feelings of political compass on US political figures is based on their interpretations of those people, not those people taking that test.  They fail to take into account why Obama has done many of the things he has, such as signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

I understand why someone would want to support the Green party.  I like most of what they stand for, minus their take on the military.  Thing is if Jill Stein somehow did manage to become President she would end up accomplishing less that Obama could in the realm of progressive ideals.  Unless there was also a wave of Green party candidates washed into congress Stein would be met with overwhelming opposition.  It is most likely she would become the most overridden President in history.

[StallChaser]

Yes I would vote for Romney if the choice was between him and Goode.  That being said the feelings of political compass on US political figures is based on their interpretations of those people, not those people taking that test.  They fail to take into account why Obama has done many of the things he has, such as signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

I understand why someone would want to support the Green party.  I like most of what they stand for, minus their take on the military.  Thing is if Jill Stein somehow did manage to become President she would end up accomplishing less that Obama could in the realm of progressive ideals.  Unless there was also a wave of Green party candidates washed into congress Stein would be met with overwhelming opposition.  It is most likely she would become the most overridden President in history.

Given that being overridden has the same exact effect as just rolling over and signing a bill, I fail to see how that would be a bad thing.  If even one thing failed to be overridden, it would be an improvement.  Also, the negative publicity of congress overriding a grossly unpopular piece of shi legislation, like for example, extension of the patriot act, would have more of an effect (because it would be in the public consciousness for longer) than if it was quietly passed and signed.

[Veras]

Yes I would vote for Romney if the choice was between him and Goode.  That being said the feelings of political compass on US political figures is based on their interpretations of those people, not those people taking that test.  They fail to take into account why Obama has done many of the things he has, such as signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

They're based on what those people have said and done, though I freely admit that there are serious flaws with the test.  The point is that of all the possible political viewpoints out there, the Democratic and Republican parties are not especially far apart.

I understand why someone would want to support the Green party.  I like most of what they stand for, minus their take on the military.  Thing is if Jill Stein somehow did manage to become President she would end up accomplishing less that Obama could in the realm of progressive ideals.  Unless there was also a wave of Green party candidates washed into congress Stein would be met with overwhelming opposition.  It is most likely she would become the most overridden President in history.

True, but winning isn't really the point.  There are a number of reasons to vote third party, and none of them is the expectation of victory.  It allows you to vote your conscience, if even the least objectionable choice that has a chance of winning is too objectionable.  A strong showing has the potential to help third parties.  Winning more than 5% of the popular vote qualifies a party for public financing in the next election.  Plus, it raises the profile of the party and can help them win local offices, and small parties do win local offices.  Gayle McLaughlin, the Mayor of Richmond, CA, is a member of the Green Party; a few Greens have been elected to state legislatures; and in four cities, Greens have at one point won a majority on town councils.  There are currently over 130 members of the Green Party who currently hold elected offices across the U.S.  That's not as impressive as the Presidency, but it does make a difference.  And, as previously mentioned, when third parties gain strong support, the major parties often shift to absorb their ideas.

The question I have for you is this:  how close does an election have to be before casting a vote for a third party becomes a waste?  Mike Pence is going to be my state's next governor:  he's polling 18 points ahead of the Democrat, John Gregg.  Romney is polling 12 points ahead of Obama here.  Would voting for a left-wing third party candidate for either office be a waste?  The Democratic candidates have no chance of winning either, and in the case of Obama, he doesn't even need to win here.  Why wouldn't voting for Gregg or Obama be a waste?

[nickiknack]

Are you defending the Military Industrial Complex there?? Seriously, the military has one of the most bloated budgets there is, I don't think it needs to be cut as much the Greens want it to be, but it needs to be cut. We don't need to be the world's policeman, shit I would say it's one of the reasons we're not so well liked.
Also I, personally don't think Single payer is possible here for certain reasons, and the best we could do is the something like the German model. But of course we would have to ship the randroids to an island first, so they don't have to be part of society anymore.

[Smurfette Principle]

Or, better yet, have our own island.

[VirtualStranger]

Or, better yet, have our own island.

I'm not sure that being trapped on an island with a bunch of tumblr users is a preferable solution.

[largeham]

Notice that how many time in that blog notes that courts have not ruled on the wiretapping constitutionality.  Until the Supreme Court rules on this it is in limbo.

It doesn't matter, it is ongoing.

Are you going to make an argument or just post non sequiturs?

Meant this.

Sounds like whining to me.

Then that's your problem.

Obama's election does no represent a massive left-wing shift.  Other than the GOP who wanted to paint Obama as a far left candidate few saw that in him.  Even more so know that the far left things he is just as bad as anyone on the right.   

I'm not saying that a majority of American became radical leftists or saw Obama as such, simply that there was a general left wing shift. Also, why is that surprising? Of course radical leftists aren't going to like politicians.

You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay?  You don't agree with a women's right to choose?  You don't agree with universal health care?  You don't agree with social safety nets?

I think there is a lot you agree with the Democratic party on.

The Democrats don't agree with this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Health care reform, fair pay act, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, student loan program overhaul....

See above.

That money does not grow on some magic tree.  It come to the party because of what the party believes.  Yes, the Dems to take up causes of the left that have gained support.  Why wouldn't they?

It is the people's fault.  The people vote these representative in.  Democracy is not a spectator sport.  Don't like who is running, run yourself or get someone you do like to run.  People have to put the work in.  Right now not very many are willing to do that.

It takes a lot of money to run for office. Guess who's gonna give it? And people would be, but maybe they don't have time. I guess working, for those who can, and living takes some time up. But yeah, people are just lazy aren't they? Barack Obama worked hard sucking up to Wall Street.

Also, what is the main role of the president? To run the country. A main task? Running a capitalist economy. Doesn't sound like a good job for a socialist.

As for America being a piece of shit, you have your head planted so far up your ass it is staining your vision.  There are few places on the planet better than the US right now.  Even with the problems we have the quality of life here is far and above what it is in most countries.

Sure, America is pretty bloody good, why can't I complain. It's the same criticism of OWS, why are they complaining, things aren't that bad.

[rookie]

Sure, America is pretty bloody good, why can't I complain. It's the same criticism of OWS, why are they complaining, things aren't that bad.

That's not what he's saying, and you know it. Cut it out.